Off the mark

Gun-permit legislation should not be enacted

Every year, close to 40,000 Americans die from gunfire. The natural reaction to such a horrible statistic is to look for solutions. What can be done to change this? How can we prevent gun-related tragedies? Unfortunately, the state Senate is taking steps to do the opposite. Last week, legislation was introduced in the Senate to ease gun permit rules and make it easier to carry a concealed weapon. Despite the arguments of pro-gun activists, there is no justification for legislation of this type. To ensure the safety of Americans, legislation must be enacted to restrict guns, not supply them.

Pro-gun activists and politicians think they have the best interest of the public in mind when they draft legislation easing restrictions on gun availability. If politicians and gun lobbyists were truly concerned with the safety of their fellow citizens, they would be pushing for stricter gun laws instead of more relaxed ones. Japan, a country possessing some of the world's strictest gun laws, reported 60 deaths from homicides involving guns in 1992. In the same year, the United States reported 17,971 total gun homicides. It is not hard to draw a conclusion. Fewer guns equals fewer deaths.

Relaxed gun regulations not only increase the likelihood of homicides, but the likelihood of suicides and accidental gun-related deaths as well. In 1991, firearms were used in 60 percent of all suicides. Numerous deaths occur each year as a result of accidental shootings. In drafting legislation that eases restrictions on guns, lawmakers need to consider the fact that guns are used less often to defend oneself than they are to hurt oneself.

In addition to the nearly 40,000 deaths that occur annually in gun-related incidents, about 90,000 Americans are treated for non-fatal gun-related injuries each year. Legislation that increases the availability of guns not only accounts for numerous deaths, but numerous injuries as well.

Many pro-gun activists argue that gun control tramples on the second amendment. There is no question that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of Americans to own guns. But when it comes to the availability of semi-automatic weapons, the intent of the founding fathers comes into question. When the framers of the Constitution decided to include the second amendment, they did so to ensure the safety of Americans from rebel armies, invasion or the dangers of the wilderness. But the current interpretation of the second amendment does not guarantee protection, only increased danger. Guns should not be completely restricted, but there is no need to increase the availability of semi-automatic weapons.

With legislation recently introduced in the Senate and already under debate in the House of Representatives, it looks likely that a bill will be passed to ease regulations on gun control and make it easier to carry a concealed weapon. But no matter how hard the politicians and pro-gun lobbyists insist, no good comes out of bills like this. In defending the bill, state Sen. David Jaye (R-Macomb) suggested that all other constitutional rights pale by comparison when compared to the right to protect one's self from a violent criminal. But this bill simply makes it more likely that the violent criminal will have a gun.

04-20-99